Tony's Response to The Times Article

From: Anthony Astaphan < astaphana@gmail. com>
Date: Sep 1, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Million Dollars Assets, $5,000 salary. CORRECTED COPY!
To: admin@thetimes. dm, matlove12@hotmail. com
Cc: The Times Newspaper <dominicatimes@ yahoo.com>, thechronicle@ cwdom.dm,
acsun@cwdom. dm, krazybellot@ yahoo.com, dbsnews@hotmail. com, wice@cwdom.dm,
Ken Richards < ken.richards@ bbc.co.uk>

CORRECTED COPY

The Times

Mr. M. Peltier,

I have read the article published by the Times on the 30th August entitled
Million Dollars assets, $5,000.00 Salary and discussed its contents with the
Honourable Prime Minister.

In direct contradiction to your view, which you expressed to me, the article
does not simply raise questions. It was intended to do and has done a great
deal more than simply raise questions. The article has in fact accused
the Prime Minister in a most damning and insidious way of corruption, an
allegation he emphatically and absolutely denies.

There is no question that the article published by the Times is not only
gravely defamatory but represents a very high level of journalistic and
media irresponsibility and dishonesty for the following reasons.

First, the article seeks to give credence to the false allegations crafted
and propagated by members of the United Workers Party and new Dominica
Freedom Party under the clever guise of a journalistic investigation. The
writer attempts to give credence to his article and accusation of
corruption by reference to "investigations" . But no details or the scope of
that alleged investigation is revealed.

Second, the headline Million Dollar Assets, $5,000 salary states in dramatic
terms and bold print an assertion of fact namely; that the Prime Minister
has accumulated one million dollars worth of assets on only $5, 000.00 ECD
per month. The manifest inference or innuendo from the headline is that the
Prime Minister has committed an unlawful or corrupt act. As a direct result,
the article repeatedly states that the Prime Minister is bound to answer
questions or come clean.

To emphasize the point that questions must be answered or that the Prime
Minister must come clean, the article referred to "selective disclosures"
by the Prime Minister. Any when you add the assertion that " our
investigations point to several issues that need clarification from the
Prime Minister" a fair minded reader will believe that the Prime Minister
failed to disclose facts which may incriminate him as being corrupt or using
his office for personal or corrupt gain.

Added to all of that, is the direct link made in the article to the
Integrity in Public Office Act. Why? Simply to paint as factual, the
perception that the Prime Minister has committed some improper or corrupt
act, has something to hide and therefore is unwilling to give effect to
the Integrity in Public office Act or legislation. Another allegation
emphatically denied by the Prime Minister.

Third and particularly damning, is the undeniable fact that the article is
constructed on a number of false premises and assumptions and is highly
defamatory of the Prime Minister. Some of the false premises and
assumptions, which expose the insidiousness of the defamatory attack and
irresponsibility of the publication by the Times, concern or relate to

The terms of the agreements of sale executed by the Prime Minister and
Vendors.
The terms of the transfers to the Prime Minister.
The terms and contents of the applications for the Certificates of Title.
The price or consideration negotiated and actually paid by the Honourable
Prime Minister.
The method of payment by the Prime Minister.
The loans and terms of the loans obtained by the Prime Minister from a
recognized international Bank and Credit Union.
The undisputed fact that caveats are on all except one of the Certificates
of Title in favour of Roosevelt Skerrit.
Absolutely no mention is made of any of the above facts.Instead of
ascertaining the true facts, the writer relied on rumour, speculation and
dangerous and unsupported assumptions as the foundation of his own frontal
attack on the Prime Minister's reputation and character. He ignored the
actual price paid by the Prime Minister, which is stated on the Transfers
and Valuations submitted by the Prime Minister, or other consideration and
resorted to phantom valuators and undisclosed experts to arrive at "the
market value" of the lands.

Additionally, the writer recklessly disregarded the existence of the caveats
on the Certificates of Title. These caveats establish conclusively the Prime
Minister's obligations and indebtedness to the Bank and Credit Union for
monies advanced to him. In spite of these caveats, which are embodied on the
Certicates of Title, the article suggests that the only lawful source of
the Prime Minister's access to revenue is the monthly salary of $5,000.

Under the law, the conveniently engineered assumptions and complete
disregard for the true and correct facts represent the height of
journalistic dishonesty, recklessness, irresponsibility and malice.

Fourth, the article is wholly unprofessional, if not dishonest, and falls
well short of the bench mark of professional journalism required by the law.
Consequently, it exposes the Times and others to substantial damages
including exemplary and aggravated damages for the following reasons.

No attempt was made to obtain the views of the Prime Minister before
publication.
No attempt was made to obtain the views of the Vendors ( or executors)
prior to publication.
The article failed to state that the Prime Minister's applications for
Certificates of Title were prepared and submitted by a firm of Attorneys at
Law.
The article failed to inform the public that the transfers of land
executed by the Prime Minister and Vendors stated the price or consideration
paid by the Prime Minister.
The article failed to state that the Prime Minister's applications for title
were accompanied by Valuations from Licensed Land Surveyors/ Valuators in
the Commonwealth of Dominica.
The article failed to state clearly and/ or emphasize that the Certificates
of Titles exists at the Registry together with the transfers and valuations
and that the Titles are in the names of Roosevelt Skerrit and not some
company or trust.
The article failed completely to mention the fact that all of the
Certificates of Titles in favour of Roosevelt Skerrit with the exception of
one are encumbered by caveats in favour of a Bank and Credit Union.
Although the Bank or Credit Union would not have disclosed any information
due to confidentiality, it is manifest from the article that no inquiries
were made to ascertain of any commercial bank or credit union whether the
Roosevelt Skerrit had a loan or other facility.
No inquiries were made of the Surveyors/Valuators or Registrar.
The article relies on unnamed sources. Reliance on sources is a clever
attempt to give credibility to an otherwise worthless story. As the direct
target was the Prime Minister and the allegations damning, failure to
identify or name sources was reckless if not intentional.

There is no question that the article published by the Times has caused
great personal injury to the Prime Minister. The injury suffered by the
Prime Minister is aggravated by the fact that the Editor and Publisher of
the Times knew or ought to have know that once published the article will
lead, and in fact led, to hysterical allegations by the parties and men
politically opposed to him on both your show on Q 95 and on the Heng. Rest
assured that those reckless and malicious allegations made on the Heng and Q
95 will also be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The Prime Minister is taking this matter very seriously.While the Prime
Minister and his advisers respect the role of the media and freedom of
expression, they cannot and will not accept that freedom to be abused or
become a licence to disseminate falsehoods and misinformation to the public.
Further, in view of the culture of misinformation being cultivated by
certain sectors of the electronic and print media, the public interest
demands that the Prime Minister protect his reputation.

In all of the circumstances, the Honourable Prime Minister has given
instructions to his Attorneys at Law and Counsel that the Times be written
to forthwith by letter and that if no public retraction, apology or
satisfaction is obtained, legal proceedings be instituted. You will no doubt
hear from his Attorneys very soon.

In the meantime fairness demands that you read this email on Monday morning
at the beginning of and during your show on Q 95 and publish it on the Times
with the same prominence given the scandalous attack on Prime Minister
Roosevelt Skerrit. Your willingness or failure to do so will reflect no
doubt on your motive and the damages which will be payable to the Prime
Minister.

Kindly be advised that any continuation, repetition or encouragement by you
or the Times whether on radio or print of this slanderous attack will lead
to the further action and aggravation of damages.

I have been asked to copy various media houses in order to let them know
that the Prime Minister intends to take strong and decisive legal action
in order to protect and defend his reputation against the salacious,
defamatory and unwarranted attacks triggered by the Times.

I trust you will be guided accordingly.

Anthony W Astaphan,S.C.